That is what you are saying. I want to hear Russia's side of the story too.
Are there any reliable Russian sources?
As it happens, Ukraine shelled a market place in Horlivka near the city of Donetsk 5 days ago with cluster rounds and killed five civilians.
The report I've seen - which is not verified by any media outlet I'd particularly trust - talks of conventional shelling and a follow-up drone attack, it doesn't mention cluster rounds.
This type of attack over 10 years is what Russia says justifies its special military operation.
Over 10 years since the illegal Russian occupation of Crimea 11 years ago...
I would like to say I am neutral - I totally accept that Russia has committed many war crimes.
You'd like to, fine - but you don't come across as neutral. Your complete inability to accept that Russia's 'justifications' for the repeated invasions of neighbouring countries are fundamentally flawed is telling.
However, AFU attacks on civilians in Donbas started long before 2022, during the time before Russia got heavily involved.
RUSSIA HAS BEEN OCCUPYING UKRAINIAN TERRITORY SINCE 2014! Russia invaded over a decade ago.
It began when the Eastern Ukrainians refused to accept the new government after the Maidan protests and riots: that government was not democratically elected.
Lie.
They wanted to remain part of Ukraine, but also wanted to maintain the military neutrality that Ukraine had had since its independence from the Soviet Union.
Even if that were true, and it's not clear that there was any great movement in favour of that, they're part of a broader country, and have to accept the broader electoral will.
So they declared independence, and formed militia to defend against the new regime.
Which was an illegal, but internal matter for Ukraine to deal with.
Russia sent them weapons to enable them to do this, while at the same time recognizing the Poroshenko government in Kiev.
It's not Russia's place to supply arms to a military uprising in a neighbouring democracy - if they feel they want to support separatists, there are political avenues for that.
The Minsk Agreements were supposed to result in the Donbas being an autonomous region of Ukraine.
The agreements that were forced on Ukraine to stem the violence of the original Russian invasion, you mean?
The Separatist militia only needed about 10,000 combat-ready troops for defensive purposes, because the Minsk agreements were meant to prevent offensives. For that reason they didn't mobilize more than that number. There came a point in November 2021 when they suspected that Kiev was not intending to keep to the agreements, and were ultimately intending to retake Donbas.
And why shouldn't they?
Kiev denied this, but we now know, from Merkel and Hollande, that France and Germany secretly intended the agreements to allow Kiev time to build up its military. I've seen a document online, outlining the reasons why Ukraine wanted to prepare for conflict with Russia. Their objective appears to have been to deter Russia from attacking. It could be that they were actually preparing to retake Donbas and Crimea, and anticipating a Russian response.
Actually, it's likely they were preparing for further Russian aggression, given that the 'autonomous' region wasn't being as forthcoming to Russian demands as they'd expected, and it seemed likely Russia would invade again.
In November 2021 the separatists appealed to Russia to send 30,000 troops to help defend against a potential AFU offensive.
There is nothing outside of Russian propoganda to suggest that anyone asked Russia to send troops.
They did this because they didn't have enough troops ready in case of such an offensive. Again, this is because, with the Minsk agreements in place, they only needed 10,000 troops to keep the front line stable.
Regardless of the Minsk agreements, they were struggling to support that many armed personnel on their population anyway.
At the same time, Russia was trying to get security guarantees from the West; the Biden administration refused these and as I recall, NATO carried out massive exercises near Russia's borders.
The border that Russia was already massing troops at? As to 'security guarantees', Russia was not in any danger. Nobody, not even the Russians, wants Russia. Russia's oligarchs want a warm-water port and ready access - it's not 'security guarantees' Russia wanted, it was easy targets.
This led to Russia massing over 100,000 troops near the Ukrainian border, whose purpose was to secure the autonomy of Donbas and to install a pro-Russian government in Kiev.
The purpose was to create a land corridor to the Crimean Peninsula for logistical and economic reasons.
So the tipping point appears to have been the breakdown of the Minsk agreements, at which point the Separatists realized that resuming of the conflict was inevitable, and their appeal to Russia for help because they were not prepared for the coming AFU offensive. Notably, the Russians had told the Separatists that they would not occupy the territories. But the Separatists said that this would lead to the AFU coming back in again, and asked the Russians to keep troops there.
No, the tipping point was Russia's initial invasion in 2014, and their illegal annexation of Crimea. Did Ukraine lie about accepting the Minsk accords - it seems so, I'm pretty sure I would have done the same thing. Did Russia also like about the Minsk Accords - it seems so. Just like they've lied about their other half-dozen invasions of foreign territories over the last twenty or thirty years.
I hope that sounds at least a little bit unbiased?
If you're not biased, then you're deluded - up to you which of those you think is preferable.
O.
